@robert – “The formula Jesus gave us was that human sacrifice is required”

– he actually got himself killed for the sake of being meek and mild. That’s a strong statement. If you think about it, self-sacrifice is required if we are to be kind to somebody. He just took it all the way.

“and that your “sins” are not your responsibility as long as you believe.”

– I agree that this is bullshit, and doesn’t work as an idea in my opinion. But to be fair, it was those who came after who pushed this line about atonement for humankind’s sins.

“Even though values by their very own nature are values & not facts can people get to some sort of consensus?”

– surely everybody wants to thrive. But principles are something different from values. Left and Right emphasise different moral foundations (see Jonathan Haidt and moral foundations theory) and seek to thrive by different routes.

“the categorical imperative translates to “how would you like it if everyone behaved like that?” in everyday life.”

– it can mean this, but also it can mean, “what is good for society?” or in other words, a large group. Even a small group. I think this formulation is more realistic, because people have always thought and considered what is good for the day-to-day life, or atmosphere, or culture, in their group.

Actually, that isn’t the point of the categorical imperative. Besides the main point I’ve already mentioned (holding to your moral rules without justifying exceptions), you must act AS THOUGH others would follow that rule. That doesn’t mean that the point of it is to necessarily make society better, it’s about being consistent with your own rules and holding others to the same standards. That doesn’t mean you expect others to do it. It means you stay true to your own rules AS THOUGH others would follow it. With many moral systems, the betterment of society is not necessarily the goal. It is a desirable outcome (or at leaast a praiseworthy outcome). But I think a lot of people try to jam them into a box with or project onto theme “golden rule” and “utilitarianism” onto other moral systems when that is not the goal that deontological ethicisists and many other moral systems, is to work out moral principles through reason with logical justification. Deontological ethics and many others are not about social engineering. Obviously if most people followed their own moral rules consistently then things would go a lot more smoothly but that is not the point of it. Regardless of if anyone else does it or not it is one of many moral systems where you can work out moral rules through reason and be consistent to them with fidelity.

universalizability principle,
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

Lets try that out. Thou shall not steal. Seems reasonable, seems universal, even was commanded by a well worshipped god.

Now start listing the infinite number of exceptions…

Thou shall not steal, unless you are stealing from a rich man to feed a starving dying, child, unless you are stealing the other armies’ battle plans , unless you are lost in the woods in deep snow and find a pair of snowshoes leaning against a vacated cabin, ad nauseum…

When one uses the term “greater good”, objectivity and universality are cooked.

When one uses the term “greater good”, objectivity and universality are cooked.

It’s partly the reason why I am really hesistant to take some moral systems seriously. Utilitarianism and consequence based moral systems are more about social engineering rather than the integrity and strength of of moral laws. Greater good is the foundation of these systems and it is next to impossible to work out the interests of everyone, discard cultural norms, make large personal sacrafices and truly consider the interests of everyone. It would require an enormous spreadsheet matrix the size of our galaxy.

If someone stole from the rich to feed the starving and dying then they would be breaking a broad moral law. For deontological ethics the excuse or reason should be understood but is not as important as admitting that you created an exception and broke your own moral law.

It is up to the individual to work out moral laws. If they want they can frame their moral laws in highly qualified words like “never steal from someone who will suffer a great loss”. I suppose most people can stand by that law without ever breaking it. However the more qualified a law is, the weaker it is and the less praiseworthy and more open to criticism and scrutiny. You can dilute your moral laws and personalize them, but hopefuly you are aware of this when you do it. Even if it is for a good cause, because of self-interest or belief you can predict the future and believe more people will find an end to suffering and an end to a lot of suffering…more so than those who suffer a little. Notice the word “believe” in there. In other words, it informs you how strong or weak your principles are and how well you can stand up to them. In reality its a very abstract moral system that asks you to be consistent with broad moral laws and have a compass for your own behavior. It’s extremely demanding. And it requires you to think about it every day and be constantly attempting to broaden your moral laws. Deontological moral systems are based on individuals framing moral laws. It isn’t a very popular one because it doesn’t give non-thinking people answers (as some other moral systems and especially dictated moral systems like theology does) and some misunderstand it by believing they must form laws and live like robots never failing. It also lacks a social dimension where people don’t work out the details moral problems to find consensus. It is not a particularly natural moral system and it requires a lot of thought and self-honesty and work on the part of the agent. It will never become a major moral system adopted by the many. That however, doesn’t make it a failed moral system…just a seemingly useless one for most people while for others it is a highly principled and authentic moral sytsem.

@robert – “When one uses the term “greater good”, objectivity and universality are cooked.”

– I think that the greater good can be universalised, not as the greatest good for the greatest number, but the greatest good for each individual. This is achieved through universal human rights (or could be) where the individual is given the maximum benefit and minimum harm available to them.

– I think that the greater good can be universalised, not as the greatest good for the greatest number, but the greatest good for each individual. This is achieved through universal human rights (or could be) where the individual is given the maximum benefit and minimum harm available to them.

You have a neighbor who has a dog. He wants to let his dog run around on his land and be a dog. The dog loves this. The pet owner believes this is his right. Guess what? Dogs bark a lot. The barking bothers you while you inside of your house even. You think you have a right not to hear barking. Please resolve this with some a greater good that applies to you two individuals.